Katrin MacPhee English 2773 March 28th 2010 Response to McPhee’s “Encounters With the Archdruid 1-A Mountain” The main focus of this article is the ongoing debate between David Brower, conservationist extraordinare, and Charles Park, geologist/mineral deposit hound dog, about whether or not the Cascades mountains of Washington should be open to copper mining. That being said, the debate is not as clear cut as one would assume. Park is not portrayed as a greedy, evil man-he presents very valid points about mining-like, we absolutely need copper to maintain our current standard of living. He also believes in responsible mining, stricter regulations on companies, and that wastefulness is criminal. Still, the ongoing conversation that McPhee chronicles as the group shacks up in cabins, traverses mountains and splashes through rivers in the wilderness shows a very clear divide between the belief that current human needs are paramount and those who believe that humanity must conserve for future generations, and must consider that nature has a value beyond its utility to man. Park is a difficult man to understand. He seems to really love nature-he has spent a great deal of his life travelling through jungles, dense forests, unknown corners of the world, often alone. His knowledge of the local ecology is stunning-he identifies many of the species they encounter, and is able to navigate his way through the wilderness readily. Brower clearly also shows the same love for and knowledge of nature. One of the great ironies of the piece is that he has spent much of his life in skyscrapers and courtrooms, fighting for the nature he loves so dearly that he hardly has any time to spend in it for many years. Despite these similarities, it seems unlikely that the two men will ever be friends. Brower takes no pains to disguise the fact that he is opposed to Park’s work, and Park feels the need to defend himself, both to Brower’s face and behind his back. Both men seem to think the other is short sighted-Park thinks Brower fails to realize the fundamental importance of metals, how we are surrounded by the products of mining everyday and that life would be very difficult without them. Brower thinks Park is wrong to only care about the utility of resources to the present generation, not to future ones. He also feels that humans must not overestimate their importance in the biosphere and that other wilderness has a right to exist untouched for its own sake. I was glad to hear this argument being made later on in this piece, especially since in Brower’s earliest debates with Park focused on the beauty of the wilderness. While this is certainly a valid point, and one that is often used by conservationists to gain popular support (like Brower with the coffee table books) I believe that it can be dangerous. First of all, it is a rather easily-countered one, as many say that beauty is subjective, or that not many people hike through mountains enough to justify the beauty existing untouched. Secondly, it is still, in some way, placing value on nature according to its utility to human-some nature should exist undeveloped so humans can go look at it when they have vacation time. Thirdly, it is a rather shallow point when one considers the stronger ones that could be made for the interconnectedness of ecosystems that all living things depend upon for survival. It is also dangerous because it seems to imply that less beautiful ecosystems aren’t as worth conserving. Swamps, for instance, may not be very pretty, but they certainly perform important functions and are necessary to maintain many species and other ecosystems. This is a problem that I feel conservation agencies need to address-there is much attention paid to attempts to dam the Grand Canyon, but not as much to destructive activities in less famous and beautiful places. Of course, this is understandable-it is hard to raise dissent for a mine in the middle of a ho-hum landscape. Still, if you oppose development for reasons deeper than the preservation of beauty, shouldn’t you pay as much attention to protecting entire ecosystems from overdevelopment as you do to protecting certain corners of the earth? Should more focus be paid to making the average city less environmentally destructive? To pressure government to plan development in a way that is less taxing on nature, rather than just putting aside certain areas of land for preservation? Of course, I do not mean this to a critique of Brower or the Sierra Club-the conservation of wilderness areas is of crucial, fundamental importance. I only fear that we will end up with small, beautiful areas of wilderness, completely enclosed by development and encroached upon. This problem has arisen in the Bay of Fundy park, for example. The conserved area is too small to allow whole ecosystems to survive-larger species are unable to do so there. The park is surrounded by development on all sides and the threatened species have nowhere to turn to. To be effective, the area conserved must be large, and attention must be paid to the interconnections between ecosystems.
English 2773
March 28th 2010
Response to McPhee’s “Encounters With the Archdruid 1-A Mountain”
The main focus of this article is the ongoing debate between David Brower, conservationist extraordinare, and Charles Park, geologist/mineral deposit hound dog, about whether or not the Cascades mountains of Washington should be open to copper mining. That being said, the debate is not as clear cut as one would assume. Park is not portrayed as a greedy, evil man-he presents very valid points about mining-like, we absolutely need copper to maintain our current standard of living. He also believes in responsible mining, stricter regulations on companies, and that wastefulness is criminal. Still, the ongoing conversation that McPhee chronicles as the group shacks up in cabins, traverses mountains and splashes through rivers in the wilderness shows a very clear divide between the belief that current human needs are paramount and those who believe that humanity must conserve for future generations, and must consider that nature has a value beyond its utility to man.
Park is a difficult man to understand. He seems to really love nature-he has spent a great deal of his life travelling through jungles, dense forests, unknown corners of the world, often alone. His knowledge of the local ecology is stunning-he identifies many of the species they encounter, and is able to navigate his way through the wilderness readily. Brower clearly also shows the same love for and knowledge of nature. One of the great ironies of the piece is that he has spent much of his life in skyscrapers and courtrooms, fighting for the nature he loves so dearly that he hardly has any time to spend in it for many years. Despite these similarities, it seems unlikely that the two men will ever be friends. Brower takes no pains to disguise the fact that he is opposed to Park’s work, and Park feels the need to defend himself, both to Brower’s face and behind his back. Both men seem to think the other is short sighted-Park thinks Brower fails to realize the fundamental importance of metals, how we are surrounded by the products of mining everyday and that life would be very difficult without them. Brower thinks Park is wrong to only care about the utility of resources to the present generation, not to future ones. He also feels that humans must not overestimate their importance in the biosphere and that other wilderness has a right to exist untouched for its own sake. I was glad to hear this argument being made later on in this piece, especially since in Brower’s earliest debates with Park focused on the beauty of the wilderness. While this is certainly a valid point, and one that is often used by conservationists to gain popular support (like Brower with the coffee table books) I believe that it can be dangerous. First of all, it is a rather easily-countered one, as many say that beauty is subjective, or that not many people hike through mountains enough to justify the beauty existing untouched. Secondly, it is still, in some way, placing value on nature according to its utility to human-some nature should exist undeveloped so humans can go look at it when they have vacation time. Thirdly, it is a rather shallow point when one considers the stronger ones that could be made for the interconnectedness of ecosystems that all living things depend upon for survival. It is also dangerous because it seems to imply that less beautiful ecosystems aren’t as worth conserving. Swamps, for instance, may not be very pretty, but they certainly perform important functions and are necessary to maintain many species and other ecosystems.
This is a problem that I feel conservation agencies need to address-there is much attention paid to attempts to dam the Grand Canyon, but not as much to destructive activities in less famous and beautiful places. Of course, this is understandable-it is hard to raise dissent for a mine in the middle of a ho-hum landscape. Still, if you oppose development for reasons deeper than the preservation of beauty, shouldn’t you pay as much attention to protecting entire ecosystems from overdevelopment as you do to protecting certain corners of the earth? Should more focus be paid to making the average city less environmentally destructive? To pressure government to plan development in a way that is less taxing on nature, rather than just putting aside certain areas of land for preservation? Of course, I do not mean this to a critique of Brower or the Sierra Club-the conservation of wilderness areas is of crucial, fundamental importance. I only fear that we will end up with small, beautiful areas of wilderness, completely enclosed by development and encroached upon. This problem has arisen in the Bay of Fundy park, for example. The conserved area is too small to allow whole ecosystems to survive-larger species are unable to do so there. The park is surrounded by development on all sides and the threatened species have nowhere to turn to. To be effective, the area conserved must be large, and attention must be paid to the interconnections between ecosystems.